CIT, CHANDIGARH. vs. INVESTMENT TRUST OF INDIA, CHENNAI
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench-A, Chennai. The Court found it inexplicable how the High Court would possess territorial jurisdiction over a Tribunal located in a different jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this preliminary ground. As the appeal was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction, the High Court did not pass any order on the application seeking condonation of delay. The Court directed that the appeal be presented before the court of competent jurisdiction.
What were the facts?
The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh (the Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench-A, Chennai (the Tribunal) on June 12, 2006. The assessee is The Investment Trust of India, Chennai. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh was considering the appeal. The Revenue also filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 638 days in re-filing the appeal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has territorial jurisdiction over an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench-A, Chennai? (Question of law) The Revenue contended that the appeal was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court, however, questioned its territorial jurisdiction over an order passed by the Tribunal located in Chennai. No specific arguments from the Revenue regarding the merits of the case or the Tribunal's order were recorded, as the appeal was dismissed on a preliminary ground.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA Nos.92 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:20.04.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh ...Appellant Versus The Investment Trust of India, Chenai ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Ms.Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. ` It is an admitted fact that impugned order in the instant appeal filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench-A, Chennai (for brevity `the Tribunal') on 12.6.2006 (A-3). We have failed to understand how this Court would have territorial jurisdiction over the Tribunal. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and the same is dismissed. To be presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction. However, in view of the fact that appeal is dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, we do not pass any order on the application seeking condonation of delay of 638 days in re-filing the appeal. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE 20.04.2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
